Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Why are we still seeing so many new cases of Covid?

56 replies

Oblahdeeoblahdoe · 27/04/2020 09:28

This is a serious question. Why is it after almost 5 weeks of lockdown are we seeing 4000+ new cases in hospital every day and that's not including care homes. Who are these people? Are they people going to work , using public transport etc? My DH and I have stuck to the guidance from the Government and we're avoiding going to the shops so not mixing with anyone. This applies to everyone in my extended family too. I know it might be speculation but does anyone know we're still getting this many cases every day?

OP posts:
lubeybooby · 27/04/2020 09:56

Even in Italy's much stricter lockdown for a longer time than us, they have only just dipped below 3000 new cases per day

The reason we and they still have so many is just the nature of the virus - lots of asymptomatic and accidental spread - this will continue for a long time and is why lockdown is needed (otherwise numbers would climb to a point where the NHS is overwhelmed even with the relatively small proportion of people who have complications)

sunnie1992 · 27/04/2020 09:59

The numbers are increasingly misleading as testing numbers increased.

At the beginning we were testing some 10,000 per day and getting 5,000 plus positive tests.

This amounted to about 50% of tests being positive.

Yesterday we did approx 30,000 tests and approx 5,000 were positive.

This is 17% of tests bring positive.

So if we were doing 100,000 tests a day in March - 50,000 would be positive, compared with 17,000 today.

The numbers have fallen hugely, in percentage terms.

Using just the raw numbers makes it look like no progress has been made.

LastTrainEast · 27/04/2020 09:59

Well no doubt some of it it people not obeying the rules, but OP we went into this knowing that hundreds of thousands could die so if it's tens of thousands that counts as a good result.
The current rate is what you get WITH lockdown.

ReceptacleForTheRespectable · 27/04/2020 10:00

My DH and I have stuck to the guidance from the Government and we're avoiding going to the shops so not mixing with anyone.

So you must be getting food deliveries, right? How many businesses are operating to get you that food? And how many can WFH?

  • food producers / farmers
  • food packaging manufacturers (paper, plastic, card etc.)
  • bottling / packaging plants
  • large-scale hauliers
  • warehouses
  • retailers
  • admin and IT staff to run the delivery websites, coordinate orders etc.
  • order pickers/packers
  • delivery drivers

The only people on that list who can WFH are admin/IT.

Hagisonthehill · 27/04/2020 10:00

The lockdown is to slow it not stop it.

Puffthemagicdragongoestobed · 27/04/2020 10:02

Do people who say it’s because people are not sticking to the rules of lockdown actually have any evidence that this is where people got infected?
I would be very interested if there is any data on how new infections potentially happened, ie is it people in care homes, working for the nhs, in warehouses etc.

KaptenKrusty · 27/04/2020 10:03

I work at a nursery every day ! Our staff have all been very ill at different stages through this - I take the tube and bus to work and have to hold babies whose parents work in the NHS - thousands of people go to work every single day and are
Exposed. Not everyone can just stay home and socially distance.

PilatesPeach · 27/04/2020 10:05

Yes I agree, I think that it will be many who are still working who are getting infected whether they are working in NHS or supermarkets or care workers or warehouses etc who might then pass it to household members more than the flouters picking it up.

Springersrock · 27/04/2020 10:06

Although the cases are remaining high the level of hospital admissions is falling. They are doing more testing and testing vastly more people outside of hospital whereas initially they were only testing people in hospital

Yes, I agree. We’ve had a mobile testing station in the area for the last few days and had a biggish spike in new cases yesterday.

We had only been testing people admitted to hospital, but people with mild symptoms have now also been tested.

Hospital admissions are falling though, and more and more people are recovering and going home.

TerrapinStation · 27/04/2020 10:07

There are no queues in our B&Q

It must be the only one, mine has huge queues and I seen even longer ones on social media.

Did anyone think that there weren't going to be any new infections? A virus doesn't die out in a matter of weeks. I don't think many who test positive today caught it before 23rd March, it's too long ago.

Doctor friends on mine say that they think the majority of new cases are caught in hospitals and care homes i.e. staff/patients/residents/their families.

Not hard evidence of course but it makes the most sense to me. The spread would be way worse if it was being transmitted by shoppers getting a bit to close with their trollies.

I heard on the news that supermarket absence rate has fallen dramatically, they aren't seeing large numbers of staff being infected.

LivinLaVidaLoki · 27/04/2020 10:15

Proportionately there arent more cases at all. Its not about more people being out. It's about the numbers. If you test 10k people and get 5k positive, then two weeks later test 20k and 7k positive then really that isnt a rise.
Also factoring in frontline testing.
So for example a nurse who has symptoms would previously have been sent home to self isolate. No test but she probably would have been infected.
She would now get a test, so her positive result gets added to the daily figures. If these tests were done earlier then the numbers earlier would have been much higher.
Inconsistent testing methods and numbers are confusing the overall results.
So I just look at it proportionately, and proportionately the rate is coming down.

user1471439240 · 27/04/2020 10:21

Even at the height of the pseudo lockdown, around 1 in 4 people had to go to work, no working from home, no furlough, no at home on full pay. They were simply left with the decision to go to work or ring in sick, leave was cancelled and if they didn’t turn in they triggered normal absence procedures.
That was the brutal reality for many of the population. Key workers had to do their bit to support the vulnerable and others who had the luxury of being at home.
Was it worth it? Is it too late to have a real lockdown?

Sleepyblueocean · 27/04/2020 10:27

Pillar 2 testing has vastly increased. My nurse sisters have been tested even though they don't have symptoms but it is possible they could be asymptomatic cases which will now count in the positive tests. A month ago they wouldn't have got a test even if they had a high temperature and cough.

ReceptacleForTheRespectable · 27/04/2020 10:28

Even at the height of the pseudo lockdown

What does this mean? All the restrictions are still in place, so we are still in 'the height of the lockdown' (assuming things don't get stricter).

EdgarAllenCrow · 27/04/2020 10:34

It's not due to people not adhering to 'the rules' its the fact its a communicable virus and millions of people have to go to work, millions have to go shopping, hundreds of thousands using public transport.

Lockdown is working. Every press briefing will tell you that. Hospital admissions and hospital deaths are falling.

Millions of people still needing to work, shop and risk infection and the fact its a virus is why people are still getting it. Not because Alan next door went to B and Q.

missyoumuch · 27/04/2020 10:39

Because many people are still allowed out and about under the rules.

The virus moves when we move. It does not aim for Johnny who is having drinks with his mates against guidance but spare Janet who works at Tesco because she has a "proper" reason for going out. Anyone moving around in contact with others can spread or receive coronavirus.

For you to be able to stay home, someone is bringing you food and other necessities. When you go to the shop someone stacks the shelves and rings you up at the till.

Atleastthedoglovesme · 27/04/2020 10:42

More testing is happening (before many cases were suspected but undiagnosed), you need to be watching the numbers of hospital admissions and deaths for a true picture. And they are dropping as lockdown is working - as the majority are sticking to the rules.

As long as the NHS is coping then opening B&Q's etc. And a gradual lifting of lockdown shouldn't be a problem. The spread of covid will happen it just needs to be gradual so that everyone who needs medical intervention can get it.

Nobody thinks we can all avoid catching it do they? Most of us will get it at some point - we just mustn't get it all at the same time.

Springersrock · 27/04/2020 10:54

It's not due to people not adhering to 'the rules' its the fact its a communicable virus and millions of people have to go to work, millions have to go shopping, hundreds of thousands using public transport

Yes, but people don’t want to think like that. They’d rather bang on and on about Alan going to B&Q, spreading death and killing little old ladies, than accept they’re just as likely to catch it on their essential trip to the supermarket as Alan is on his murderous trip to buy some paint

We had a biggish spike in positive cases yesterday. We’ve also had a mobile testing station in the area for a few days. The increase in positive cases isn’t due to a rise in testing, it’s because “apparently, it’s like a normal day out there”.

It’s all Dave’s fault because he took his dog for 2 walks on Wednesday - and enjoyed it!!!

Inforthelonghaul · 27/04/2020 10:58

But it never was about preventing infection it was about slowing it and it’s done that. You can’t avoid a virus forever even by staying at home.

Lockdown is doing what it was meant to do but people will continue to be infected and there will be deaths for lots of different reasons because sadly some will be more susceptible.

PicsInRed · 27/04/2020 10:59

...Alan is on his murderous trip to buy some paint

😂😂😂

CuriousaboutSamphire · 27/04/2020 11:02

Alan - you bastard!

BigChocFrenzy · 27/04/2020 11:08

There would have been far, far more deaths without lockdown

This is not a "Hard" lockdown as in Italy or France, but a compromise to allow a bit more freedom to exercise and shop

Also, it is not just essential woorkers who are going out to work, but anyone who cannot WFH and whose employer is still open

Springersrock · 27/04/2020 11:18

Honestly, someone is banging on on Facebook that there was 50 people in the queue at B&Q this morning and how it was all their fault people were dying.

The virus doesn’t know or care whether the queue is outside ASDA or outside B&Q.

It only opened this morning, and it’s a bit out the way so how the fuck would they know how many people were in a queue anyway unless they were in it themselves?

IHaveAMagicBean · 27/04/2020 11:23

My daughter is a city centre nurse, she travels to work via public transport. Not working with Covid patients, she works with children and young adults. Obviously if she did pick up the virus, she’d spread it whilst traveling to work, shopping etc. Until she was aware she was ill. I suppose lots of people are in the same situation. Travel, shopping etc and potentially infected.

gamerchick · 27/04/2020 11:29

There are no queues in our B&Q. All orders are confirmed by staff near the entrance to the car park, customers remain in their cars and wait for the staff member to bring your order out, leave and then you get out of the car and load your order in. All staff membera wear special respiratory masks (not just cloth ones)

Ours are open. With what looks like 2 hr queues outside.